In view of the magnetic electron moment is shown, what its characteristic size can not be less or one order with classical electron radius re=e 2 /(mec 2 )=2.8210-13 sm. The statement, what the Coulomb’s law for electron is carried out up to distances 10-15 sm it is incorrect, as results in consequences roughly contradicting to experience. For the characteristic of the electron size it is possible to use Compton length e=h/(mec)=2.4310-10 sm or parameter Re= ħ/(mec)=e /(2)=3.8610-11 sm. Key words: the magnetic moment, magnetic forces, classical radius, Compton length for electron

4 comments:

IMHO No Real Mystery Folks no real mystery folks just some good ole fashion detailed engineering that Rossi made it happen before our eyes, no less: at his blog today James Andrew RovnakYour comment is awaiting moderation.June 26th, 2015 at 4:37 PMJust thinking about how simple all this is Andrea – the big picture of the New Fire with only a few more engineering details to be worked out like you have done in the E-Cat series – thanks again from all of us who see the TRUTH & now for the details, No?Just think of it this way, fast neutrons gave us the Bomb, thermalized in media such as water they gave us current nuclear reactors, now sub thermalized by surface plasmon politrons (SPP) of Widom & Larsen simplified thinking – electron collides with hydrogen ions at metal surfaces stimulated by EM frequency or frequencies ( Ni / Li) give us sub thermal neutron which can’t travel very far & make almost immediate isotopes such as Ni58 > Ni59 & so on up the isotope chain giving us tremendous power Rossi has tamed in Hot E-Cats, it’s that simple folks – no great mystery just a lot of hard engineering work IMHO! Jim

Andrea RossiJune 26th, 2015 at 4:52 PMJames Andrew Rovnak:Sorry, I have taken off your comment a theory that is too nonsensical to be published even in a blog. It violates practically all the foundamental laws of physics. Suggestion: without strong bases, better let alone theories.Warm Regards,A.R.

Rossi likes the theories of N. Cook as follows:

Observing the E-Cat at work, combined with the data of the Lugano Report and the study of the theory of Norman Cook our technology is consolidating by the day.

Scientists don’t always agree with each other. Yes, I know; shocking but true. In cases of collegial disagreement, it’s often fun to quantify the extent of opinion by gathering a collection of experts and taking a poll. Inevitably some killjoy will loudly grumble that “scientific questions aren’t decided by voting!”, but that misses the point. A poll of scientists isn’t meant to decide questions, it’s meant to collect data — mapping out the territory of opinion among people who have spent time and effort thinking carefully about the relevant questions.

There’s been a bit of attention given recently to one such poll, carried out by Maximilian Schlosshauer , Johannes Kofler, and Anton Zeilinger at a quantum foundations meeting (see John Preskill at Quantum Frontiers, Swans on Tea). The pollsters asked a variety of questions, many frustratingly vague, which were patiently answered by the 33 participants.

It’s a histogram of the audience’s “favorite” interpretation of quantum mechanics. As we see, among this expert collection of physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians, there is not much of a consensus. A 42% percent plurality votes for the “Copenhagen” interpretation, while the others are scattered over a handful of alternatives.

I’ll go out on a limb to suggest that the results of this poll should be very embarrassing to physicists. Not, I hasten to add, because Copenhagen came in first, although that’s also a perspective I might want to defend (I think Copenhagen is completely ill-defined, and shouldn’t be the favorite anything of any thoughtful person). The embarrassing thing is that we don’t have agreement.

Think about it — quantum mechanics has been around since the 1920’s at least, in a fairly settled form. John von Neumann laid out the mathematical structure in 1932. Subsequently, quantum mechanics has become the most important and best-tested part of modern physics. Without it, nothing makes sense. Every student who gets a degree in physics is supposed to learn QM above all else. There are a variety of experimental probes, all of which confirm the theory to spectacular precision.

And yet — we don’t understand it. Embarrassing. To all of us, as a field (not excepting myself).

I’m sitting in a bistro at the University of Nottingham, where I gave a talk yesterday about quantum mechanics. I put it this way: here in 2013, we don’t really know whether objective “wave function collapse” is part of reality (as the poll above demonstrates). We also don’t know whether, for example, supersymmetry is part of reality. Wave function collapse has been a looming problem for much longer, and is of much wider applicability, than the existence of supersymmetry. Yet the effort that is put into investigating the two questions is extremely disproportionate.

Not that we should be spending as much money trying to pinpoint a correct understanding of quantum mechanics as we do looking for supersymmetry, of course. The appropriate tools are very different. We won’t know whether supersymmetry is real without performing very costly experiments. For quantum mechanics, by contrast, all we really have to do (most people believe) is think about it in the right way. No elaborate experiments necessarily required (although they could help nudge us in the right direction, no doubt about that). But if anything, that makes the embarrassment more acute. All we have to do is wrap our brains around the issue, and yet we’ve failed to do so.

I’m optimistic that we will, however. And I suspect it will take a lot fewer than another eighty years. The advance of experimental techniques that push the quantum/classical boundary is forcing people to take these issues more seriously. I’d like to believe that in the 21st century we’ll finally develop a convincing and believable understanding of the greatest triumph of 20th-century physics.

How can LENR AKA quantum fusion get a fair review from people who can't possibly understand it? These people should look at LENR as physical reality and try to understand it rather than assuming that it is impossible in principle.